A good all around .303 brit load?

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Alberta
Anyone want to share their decent .303 british loads? I am not looking for a super accurate load, but one that some people have found works well with decent accuracy in a few different Lee Enfields. I am aware every rifle shoots different, especially 60+ year old bores, but like I said I am just looking to see if anyone knows of a few all around decent loads.

Thanks.
 
303 Brit.

Have great results with
Hornady 174grs. bullets over 38 grs. of Varget.
very pleasant to shoot.
shot a 1.5 inch, 100 m group from my# 4 two days ago...
 
You're going to choose a bullet and then develop a load that works in your gun.

I worked up some loads yesterday with the Hornady 174 gr BTHP in my P14, and used four different powders: IMR4064; RL15; Varget and H4350. None shot poorly, but by going up in 0.5 gr increments, I found two that were distinctly superior to the others.
 
I would have to agree with the 174 grain bullet weight. I have had better luck with that than anything else. Your mileage will vary with different powders though. Varget is a good place to start.
 
I've had good luck with 150 Hornady SP's in the 303's I own. For my most accurate 303 I use 43.5 g of IMR 4064 powder and a Winchester primer , as mentioned above your rifle may well prefer a different bullet and powder combination.
 
i have had the best success so far with Reloder 15 in 303 and 30-30. it's now the only powder i buy for my rifles. for .303 brit my favorite plinking load is a 125grain sierra over 45.3 grains R15, it's easy on the shoulder and will group (with peeps) out of my churchill no4mk1 about 1.5" at 100m. i have pushed the same bullet up to 49 grains and it sure seems to pack a whollop, though yet untested on game. i did find the 45.3g load hits about 6" below a factory 180g due to barrel residence. also i have found them only to be accurate if you seat them almost touching the rifling...even as much as .020-.030 back has resulted in a steep drop in accuracy. mine are literally seated about 3/16" into the case.
 
C Broad Arrow said:
All good suggestions. ww w.303british.com is another good source.
Click to expand...

As a few others have already mentioned, the 174gr perform well. I have some Sierra 180gr Spitzers and recently started 'working' with some 215gr Woodleigh but I'd be hard pressed to do better than I have with the 174gr weight range. I have a batch of 174gr FMJ's and from what I've tried, they shoot on an accuracy par with the Hornady 174gr RN Interlock.

303BrJCBG.jpg


Not too long ago I picked up a pair of Jungle Carbines and put a scope on one that was a little rough, primarily fpr load testing.

SmokeyBobJC303Br.jpg


The other is almost mint and I put an original bayonet on it, just for the hell of it.

MyJCwithbayonet.jpg


With the open/iron sights and, my vision, it shoots fairly respectable.
 
If you're loading for a rifle with Enfield rifling (unaltered Number 4, old Number 1 Mark III*, P-'14, a few Rosses) just remember that Enfield rifling really doesn't like boat-tailed bullets all that well.

I get my best results, insofar as accuracy is concerned, with 37 to 38 grains of IMR-4895 under a Sierra 180 flatbase bullet, seated to OAL length of a Mark VII Ball round. This crowds the rifling a bit, which is needed because of the different ogvie shape of the Sierra. This puts out about 2250 ft/sec from an SMLE, which is the by-test most accurate speed for the Lee rifle with the 25.2-inch barrel. With this, I get half-inch out of a Lithgow SMLE, 1 inch out of an unaltered as-issued NRF and half an inch from a 1910 Ross.

For a faster bullet, try the Hornady flatbase 150, seated out so the whole cannelure shows. Very zippy and quite accurate.

Whatever you do, be sure to have fun.
 
Hornady makes .312 and Speer runs .311 I believe? Not a lot of selection out there surprisingly .................Harold .........everyone ran out to get the latest magnum
 
Last edited:
Hello kind folks, I've been doing some research on this subject, and this very thread seems to be quite a fit for me. Like the OP, I happen to have bought the 174 Gr FMJBTs. The question now though, is what powder to get. The array out there is mystifying and the Hodgdon site, whilst good lists quite a few for this weight of bullet.

Being a rank newbie, I'd like to start small and slowly work myself up to accurate loads. Any thoughts? FYI, I have a buddy who has years of experience doing pistol loads. He'll be doing the rifle loads with me and 'learning with me'. I'm betting he will keep me safe for a bit :)

Any thoughts?
 
Where does the notion that Lee Enfield barrels do not shoot boat-tail bullets well come from? Specifically what aspect of the barrel supposedly causes this? Is it the 2, 4, or 5 groove? All of them? Only Lee Enfields?

My own experiences have shown that boat-tail bullets shoot every bit as well as flat based, and usually better - in "tight" barrels (i.e. 0.312" groove size) anyways. The only circumstance where I could see a flat-base bullet shooting better than a boat-tail, is when there is a poor bullet fit (over sized barrel), in which case the longer bearing surface of the bullet, and the ability of a flat-base bullet to obturate (expand) could compensate for being undersized and help the bullet better fill the grooves.

This is a recent "discovery" and after looking, I see some talk about boat-tail 303 Brit machinegun ammo not shooting well in the rifles. Now someone has taken the jump that all boat-tail bullets can not shoot well in all Lee Enfields. This is the sort of thing can that enter gun folklore and never be extinguished.

If you disagree, please answers my questions in the top paragraph.
 
Andy - My own experience with LE's (and other milsurp calibres) is opposite to yours. I would suspect that a lot of LE's have washed out throats. Bore may be tight at the muzzle, but eroded at the throat.
Additionally, I would imagine that for a given manufacturing cost, it is easier to produce a concentric, flat based bullet than a boat tail. For someone like myself (cheap), the Hornady flat based 312 150 grainers are hard to beat.
Having said that, I have a stash of 80's vintage FN ball (~170 gr FMJ boat-tails) that is consistently accurate and comparable to my best handloads. I attributed this to it being ammo of exceptional quality/consistency. However, this thread has piqued my interest - so I'm going to do an experiment (mexican match with 174 gr Hornady vs reloads with pulled FN bullets). I'll do it in both a P-14 and a No4 that are known to shoot.... Who knows, maybe I'll claim it as SR+D tax credit!
 
Thanks for all the thoughts guys. I actually already bought the Hornady 175 Gr FMJBTs from Henry. My problem was that all the data I can find seems to be for Sierra bullets in that size/weight. Would it be a problem to use the same data for Sierra and apply to Hornady?

And to my original problem...which powder would I be best to start off reloading these cartridges be?
 
OEM,
When you are reloading the same weight but different brands, I always like to start at the minimum recommended powder weight and move up. You most likely wont have a problem if you interchange the loading information between say a 180 Spire Point and a 180 grain Round Nose, but I once interchanged a load in my 243 from a load I have worked up with a ballistic silvertip--I then just 'risked it' and crushed a few old barnes 95 grain projectiles in for good measure for testing. . . Well needless to say the primers blew out and the blown cases separated and I was left with a brass clogged 243. Just consult 1, 2 or 3 published reloading sources, cross reference the bullet weight, design simmilarities and powder amounts and compare between them and choose the lowest published minimum load, and work them up. . . I do find that the Hornady Published Data is somewhat 'warm' on their load maximums. If you are loading Hornady I can send you some load data out of the Published Book. Just PM me give me 1/2 a day and I can have them out to you. Have a great time with the old girl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom